Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 To October 23, 2022

JUDGMENT THIS WEEK Valuation Of Shares For The Purpose Of Gift Tax Should Take Into Consideration Limitation And Restrictions: Supreme Court The Supreme Court has held that the valuation of shares for the purpose of gift tax must take into consideration the limitations and restrictions. The division bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari has observed that the equity shares under the lock-in period were not "quoted shares", for the simple reason that the shares in the lock-in period were not quoted on any recognised stock exchange regularity from time to time. There are no current transactions relating to these shares made in the ordinary course of business. The equity shares, being under the lock-in period, could not be traded and, therefore, remained unquoted on any recognised stock exchange. Supreme Court Transfers All Writ Petitions Challenging Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020 To Madras High Court The Supreme Court transferred all writ petitions which have been filed before various High Courts challenging the validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020 to the Madras High Court. "Since the petitions which are transferred have been instituted before diverse High Courts in the country, it would be appropriate if the Division Bench hearing the petitions permits such of the parties, who desire to appear through a virtual platform, to participate in the course of the hearing on that basis", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed in the order allowing Transfer Petitions filed by the Reserve Bank of India. Courts Should Not Sit Over Commercial Wisdom Of General Body Of Cooperative Society : Supreme Court The Supreme Court observed that the Courts should not sit over the commercial wisdom of the General Body of the Cooperative Society as an Appellate Authority. The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala observed that the Co-operative Society is to function democratically and the internal democracy of a society, including resolutions passed in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws have to be respected and implemented. Recovery Of Weapon Used By Accused To Commit Offence Is Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction : Supreme Court The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari reiterated that the recovery of the weapon used by the accused to commit the offence is not a sine qua non for conviction. In this case, the accused were tried and convicted in a murder case. It was the prosecution case that owing to animosity between the friend of the accused, they had killed the deceased. The Madras High Court later acquitted the accused by allowing the appeal. Promissory Estoppel Would Not Apply Against The Exercise Of Legislative Powers Of The State : Supreme Court The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not apply against the exercise of legislative powers of the State. In this case, the High Court of Delhi, dismissed writ petitions filed by Hero Motocorp and Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. who claimed 100% budgetary support in lieu of the pre-existing 100% outright excise duty exemption for ten years from the date of the commencement of commercial production, as provided for by the said O.M. of 2003 issued by the Government of India. Minister/Public Servant Can File Private Complaint Alleging Defamation; Need Not Follow Special Procedure U/Sec 199 (2) & (4) CrPC : Supreme Court The Supreme Court observed that a minister or public servant (a person covered by Section 199(2)) can file a private complaint alleging defamation and need not follow the special procedure prescribed by Section 199(2) & (4) CrPC. "The special procedure is in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always has as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian said. Statements Like 'I Will Expose Your Scam' Against A Minister Not Defamatory Unless There Is Something More: Supreme Court The statements such as "I will expose you", "I will expose your corrupt practices" and "I will expose the scam in which you are involved, etc." are not by themselves defamatory unless there is something more, the Supreme Court observed while quashing defamation complaint filed by Delhi Minister Manish Sisodia against BJP leader Vijender Gupta. The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian observed that defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general. Impact Of Reduction Of Number Of Convicts Below 5 Pending An Appeal Against Conviction U/Sec 149 IPC Owing To Death Of Co-Convicts : Supreme Court Explains In a...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 To October 23, 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags